June 14, 2011

"Supreme Court just ruled in favor of the Republicans on Budget Repair."

That's the word on the street.

(Talking about Wisconsin Supreme Court here.)

ADDED: Here is the opinion, which is based on the proper role of the courts in a system of separation of powers:
In Goodland v. Zimmerman, 243 Wis. 459, 10 N.W.2d 180 (1943), the court...  explained that the “judicial department has no jurisdiction or right to interfere with the legislative process. That is something committed by the constitution entirely to the legislature itself.” Id. at 467. The court held that “[b]ecause under our system of constitutional government, no one of the co-ordinate departments can interfere with the discharge of the constitutional duties of one of the other departments, no court has jurisdiction to enjoin the legislative process at any point.” Id. at 468. The court noted that “[i]f a court can intervene and prohibit the publication of an act, the court determines what shall be law and not the legislature. If the court does that, it does not in terms legislate but it invades the constitutional power of the legislature to declare what shall become law. This [a court] may not do.” Id.

... [W]hether a court can enjoin a bill is a matter of great public importance and also because it appears necessary to confirm that Goodland remains the law that all courts must follow.... Accordingly, because the circuit court did not follow the court’s directive in Goodland, it exceeded its jurisdiction, invaded the legislature’s constitutional powers under Article IV, Section 1 and Section 17 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and erred in enjoining the publication and further implementation of the Act.
So Judge Sumi, asserting that the legislature had violated the law, herself violated the state constitution. Seeking to check the excesses of the legislature, she fell into judicial excess.

183 comments:

James said...

"@BrettHulseyWI Brett Hulsey
“@joeyzama: Supreme Court just ruled in favor of the Republicans on Budget Repair.” Sad
"

What's sad about that?

hombre said...

The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of the people of Wisconsin and against the Unions?

Dan said...

What a relief! Finally sound minds are taking over. What happens to Sumi? She should be censured or something.

Lucien said...

@James:

Obviously it's sad because Mr. Hulsey is emotionally invested in judicial construction of Wisconsin's open meetings statute.

That was the legal issue involved, eright?

andinista said...

And that's why they didn't just re-debate and pass the law again. To do so would have been to permanently give up power to the "we'll interpret the laws based on what we feel like and our desired outcome" left-liberal judiciary.

James said...

Thank you Justice Prosser...LOL.


Full opinion here: http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=66078

galdosiana said...

Thank goodness for an ounce of common sense.

I was down at the Capitol today and was literally shocked by the paltry numbers who showed up to protest. Only a couple hundred at best, which is awful considering the many emails and facebook invitations I got to the "Emergency Protest at the Capitol" for the expected "thousands of protesters" who would show up in solidarity.

vet66 said...

Simply stated, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the law and not some biased, specious claim to a lesser god. Justice was served and no coup was required which makes our country a nation of laws based on sound principle.

Lincolntf said...

...One of the courts...has usurped the Legislative power which the WI Constitution grants exclusively to the Legislature...."

Music to my ears. Well done Wisconsin Supreme court.

MarkG said...

"I was down at the Capitol today and was literally shocked by the paltry numbers who showed up to protest."

There's a general malaise in the movement, especially after nothing damning was found in the Palin emails.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

galdosiana, in the spring it seemed to me like the protests were strongly emlarged by the presence of students and faculty. Now that it's summer and most of them are gone, I expect the protests to be smaller. Doesn't necessarily reflect a lessened enthusiasm, just a lessened populace of enthusiasts.

Sixty Grit said...

SHAME SHAME SHAME!!!

Just usurping Garbage and his cohort.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Emlarged? My fingers are inventing their own words again!

Dody Jane said...

Yippee!!!

Sixty Grit said...

I understood - I could see you were going for "embiggened".

MarkG said...

And there's a shortage of men's socks.

virgil xenophon said...

Lets see how quickly CNN, et al spotlights this on "Breaking News."
(NOT holding breath)

galdosiana said...

@Martin: I think it's very true that the majority of the protesters in the spring were students. I will say that the people who were there today were just as emphatic and angry as they've ever been, and there was a lot of banging of drums and blowing of foghorns--straight at the Republicans' office windows. (All this while shouting "This is what democracy looks like!!")

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

I wish the state could deduct the court costs from Sumi's pay. Now that would be justice served.

kcom said...

How's this for a headline from Forbes.com?

Wisconsin's polarizing union law to take effect

DKWalser said...

From the opinion:

...

This court has granted the petition for an original action because one of the courts that we are charged with supervising has usurped the legislative power which the Wisconsin Constitution grants exclusively to the legislature. It is important for all courts to remember that Article IV, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution provides: “The legislative power shall be vested in a senate and assembly.” Article IV, Section 17 of the Wisconsin Constitution provides in relevant part: “(2) . . . No law shall be in force until published. (3) The legislature shall provide by law for the speedy publication of all laws.”

...

...Accordingly, because the circuit court did not follow the court’s directive in Goodland, it exceeded its jurisdiction, invaded the legislature’s constitutional powers under Article IV, Section 1 and Section 17 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and erred in enjoining the publication and further implementation of the Act.


Ouch! That's got to leave a mark on Judge Sumi's reputation (and the reputation of FLS).

Pogo said...

But Sumi's a woman and women, it is well known, do almost everything better.

So this must be a horrible mistake.

Seven Machos said...

Gald -- You were literally shocked? Stop sticking forks in electrical outlets perhaps.

Anyway, I am so glad to see all this happen this way. Fizzle is the best ending. The fact that the protesters turned out to be mostly students from Sheboygan and the North Shore of Chicago is simply hilarious.

Whatever happened to that one Jim guy, by the way?

granmary said...

About damn time.

Michael K said...

kcom said...

How's this for a headline from Forbes.com?

Wisconsin's polarizing union law to take effect


Forbes must have hired that headline writer from CNN Money.

nevadabob said...

"I wish the state could deduct the court costs from Sumi's pay. Now that would be justice served."

Or, Republicans could bus a bunch of gangsta thugs over to her house and scare the holy fuck out of her kids, terrorizing her and her family.

Like Democrats do.

Republicans really have to stop whining and start fighting fire with fire.

Do whatever they do.

Use whatever they use.

Adopt their tactics.

Make them live by their own rulebook.

Seven Machos said...

Shouldn't the headline be:

Wisconsin Supreme Court smacks Sumi around

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Wasn't Hulsey Meade's bitch for awhile???

wv - dishessa

vnjagvet said...

The decision was 4 to 3. Prosser was one of the four and issued a separate opinion. There is no way this would have happened with the Klopster on the Court. Elections matter.

Fen said...

I am urging the Union Brats to stage a hunger strike..

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

So what's this Althouse citation I see in the decision? Just a coincidence, Professor? Or is there a connection? I don't know how to search cases to find the details.

Richard Dolan said...

The decision takes the form of a short per curiam, a concurrence by Prosser and two dissents. The majority's per curiam is all about separaion of powers -- courts can't inject themselves into how the legislature schedules meetings and hearings, and anyway the hearing on this bill was televised and was open to the public. It is remarkable only for the necessity of having to restate some well settled limits on judicial power. The dissent by the Chief Justice is partcularly biting and personal in tone.

While I'm not familiar with the WI SCT, judging by this decision it seems likely that they divide frequently on a 4-3 basis.

Seven Machos said...

Union Brats? Sounds delicious. I'll have mine with grilled onions and lots of mustard. A couple hot peppers, too, if you got 'em.

traditionalguy said...

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is arrogantly acting as if Dane County is still a part of Wisconsin. We will now get to see if Wisconsin can protect its state Capitol from the secessionists mobs in Madison who view it as South Carolina viewed Ft. Sumter.

Lincolntf said...

So should we expect more "Days of Rage" from the Government workers?

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

"The decisions are nearly unanimous in holding that an act cannot be declared invalid for failure of the house to observe its own rules. Courts will not inquire whether such rules have been observed in the passage of the act. Likewise, the legislature by statute or joint resolution cannot bind or restrict itself or its successors as to the procedure to be followed in the passage of legislation."

Didn't somebody around here -- Seven Machos, maybe -- make exactly this argument, repeatedly? And the liberals kept telling him he was wrong.

Seven, if that was you, kudos!

gutless said...

I'm confused. Was Judge Sumi the gal with the suspiciously al Qaida looking scarf she always wore or was she the laughably misshapen and frightening other one? Does this draw a clear enough distinction for identification? Please respond. Thank you.

edutcher said...

Never forger the words of Senator John Blutarsk... - I mean, Russell Feingold.

Jay said...

There's a general malaise in the movement, especially after nothing damning was found in the Palin emails.

And, considering we've spent a trillion to "stimulate" the economy and things have gotten worse, the idea that government spending creates jobs has been thoroughly discredited.

That fact won't make these people happy campers.

James said...

@Richard Dolan.
The court frequently splits 4-3. Chief Justice Abrahamson dislikes the four conservatives, especially Michael Gableman who defeated Louis Butler a few years ago.

rhhardin said...

It just shows the need for the left to control the courts to get rid of reactionaries.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Wow! Some Chief Justice you folks have! Bitter, bitter, bitter...

jelink said...

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Emlarged? My fingers are inventing their own words again!
--------

As every Simpsons fan knows, the correct term is "embiggened".

Sofa King said...

Can I just point out that I've been TOTALLY VINDICATED?

Milwaukee said...

Not too late the strip police and fire of their collective bargaining rights. Since they want to stand shoulder to shoulder with their union pals, strip away.

This is soooo unfair. Public sector union employees get the pay, the great bennies and now get out of the union. Wisconsin can be the first split state: right-to-work for public sector employees, closed shop for private workers. Soooo unfair!

Jason said...

Wow...read that opinion. Talk about the Supreme Court bitch-slapping an over-reaching judge.

Question for minds more "legal" than mine: what does this mean for Judge Sumi?

Sofa King said...

Didn't somebody around here -- Seven Machos, maybe -- make exactly this argument, repeatedly? And the liberals kept telling him he was wrong.

Oooh! Ooooh!

waves arms furiously IT WAS ME!

Almost Ali said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mogget said...

What is the significance of the ab initio with respect to contracts signed between the date that Judge Sumi ruled and now?

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Kudos, Sofa King! Sorry I misremembered.

Almost Ali said...

...what does this mean for Judge Sumi?

National recognition. Career advancement. Lifetime client.

Jason (the commenter) said...

This saps the Democrat's ability to call Walker and Co. "criminals", which was the sole purpose of Sumi's ruling.

Palladian said...

gutless said... "I'm confused. Was Judge Sumi the gal with the suspiciously al Qaida looking scarf she always wore or was she the laughably misshapen and frightening other one? Does this draw a clear enough distinction for identification? Please respond. Thank you."

Kloppenburg is the one who looks like the mummy of Rameses II wearing one of Phil Spector's wigs and Judge Sumi is the one who looks like Tor Johnson playing the lead in a Lifetime Television original miniseries called "The Justice Elena Kagan Story".

Fred4Pres said...

Did you hear any heads pop in Madison?

Mel said...

How important was that Kloppenberg race?!?

Almost Ali said...

From the Forbes/AP story: "The Wisconsin Supreme Court said the judge had no authority to interfere with the legislative process."

Oh yes she did. She shut the legislative down. And sent the executive packing. Not bad for an heretofore obscure liberal judge.

nevadabob said...

"Did you hear any heads pop in Madison?"

Course not. It's not over.

It's not over till they win.

Dontcha know.

nevadabob said...

"How important was that Kloppenberg race?!?"

How important was it to hide those 7,000 votes so the vote fraudsters would believe they only needed to win by 200 on election night?

Hahahahaha.

What a bunch of maroons.

JohnJ said...

Now what?

With all deference to (ex!)Senator Feingold, hasn't the left pretty much exhausted not only itself, but also all of its options?

Sofa King said...

Now what?

With all deference to (ex!)Senator Feingold, hasn't the left pretty much exhausted not only itself, but also all of its options?

I would assume that their next move would be to challenge the law based on the 3/5 quorum requirement.

A. Shmendrik said...

I'm thinking that the number of Circuit Court opinions which cite Marbury v. Madison on the first page is very small. While I didn't immerse myself in her opinion (I had one of those blink moments reading the first page), I just felt Sumi was swinging for the fences from the start of that decision.

To the riff-raff in the streets I say up your nose with a rubber hose!

Palladian said...

"With all deference to (ex!)Senator Feingold, hasn't the left pretty much exhausted not only itself, but also all of its options?"

They still have a bunch of recall elections to cheat their way through.

And, of course, there's always screeching and breaking things. And puppets.

Alex said...

Anyways garage is 100% sure that the recalls will be in favor. Temporary setback for the progressive agenda.

Fred4Pres said...

Is this the legal equivalent of a woodshedding?

If so, Judge Sumi's butt must be pretty sore.

Jason said...

The amount of venom being spewed by the left on Twitter right now is amazing.

I mean, its hilarious...the Supreme Court basically just gave every member of a union a raise today by not allowing unions to automatically pull dues from their paychecks, but yet they are frothing at the mouth that their life as they know it is over.

All because the state is asking for them to actually pay for part of their health care and pensions.

Its amazing the world we currently live in.

Browndog said...

You know what's really, really sad?

It's not a republican law.

But, it will now be branded as such.

"Open Meetings Act used by republicans to strip rights in secrecy"

Southpaw said...

"Did you hear any heads pop in Madison?"

champagne corks, most likely

Ben G. said...

As a relative of Tor Johnson, I object. He was a very nice man, not at all like those jurists.

SGT Ted said...

I guess thats what Democracy looks like.

Drew said...

Now what?

With all deference to (ex!)Senator Feingold, hasn't the left pretty much exhausted not only itself, but also all of its options?


Well, the left has certainly exhausted me!

David said...

1. What's with Justice Shirley? Her attacks on the majority are quite personal. This in an opinion. Imagine what she's like in Chambers.
2. This was a close case, votewise. Not so intellectually. The minority imho would have reached a different result had the substantive issue in the legislation been congenial to them.
4. Not a good day for the court system overall. We were just 7000 votes away from more judicial imperialism.

Alex said...

champagne corks, most likely

Yes because on July 12th, 6 GOP state senators will be recalled for union-busting.

JohnJ said...

“And puppets.”

I'd be surprised if puppets made an appearance. Puppets take a certain whimsy, and whatever whimsy the left may have had, has been pretty thoroughly gutted.

So..., drums again, maybe. But most likely, no puppets.

Sofa King said...

I think it's worth noting that the dissenters did not really dissent from the substantive conclusion of the majority (though Abrahamson makes some heft insinuations); they dissented as to the proper judicial procedure for hearing and deciding the case, in effect complaining that the court did not take longer to act. I think even Abrahamson & Co. knew better than to explicitly agree with Sumi's gross power grab.

jim said...

As Feingold said to the throbbing multitudes recently: "It isn't over until we've won."

PatCA said...

From what I understand, the opinion was quite the smackdown.

Tom DeGisi said...

> I think it's worth noting that the dissenters did not really dissent from the substantive conclusion of the majority (though Abrahamson makes some heft insinuations); they dissented as to the proper judicial procedure for hearing and deciding the case, in effect complaining that the court did not take longer to act. I think even Abrahamson & Co. knew better than to explicitly agree with Sumi's gross power grab.

True, but they were pretty scathing on the lack of proper judicial procedure, especially about the use of facts or the use of 'facts', depending on whether you think the majorities facts were factual.

Yours,
Tom

sybilll said...

You know we are all waiting with baited breath to see if Meade got some Capitol reactions. Bring them on. I hear WI Union tears taste like Skittles.

Sofa King said...

True, but they were pretty scathing on the lack of proper judicial procedure, especially about the use of facts or the use of 'facts', depending on whether you think the majorities facts were factual.


When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound the table!

Southpaw said...

"champagne corks, most likely

Yes because on July 12th, 6 GOP state senators will be recalled for union-busting."

...and reelected and sent right back to Madison.

Carol_Herman said...

What's SUMI going to do now?

kcom said...

Puppets take a certain whimsy, and whatever whimsy the left may have had, has been pretty thoroughly gutted.

You don't consider busting into a Special Olympics recognition ceremony to be whimsical? Where is your sense of outre style?

Kansas City said...

The decision seems like the corrrect result, but it was rendered in an unfortunate context and process which allowed the dissents to essentially accused the majority of partisanship and dishonesty, and tehy were able to do so from the high (and possibly correct) ground of judicial procedure. The dissents said the important issues should have been carefully considered in a deliberative process rather than the expedited process followed by the majority. So, unfortunately, the decision, and especially the very tough dissent by the chief justice, will add to the partisan nature of the dispute.

Of course, the underlying lawsuit is largely frivolous. It is a challenge to the alleged "secrecy" of a five minute meeting that was broadcast on television with a packed room of media and the public.

Michael said...

This probably calls for a protest.

Fred4Pres said...

Flaming Badger!

No, not Titus...Ace's new Wisconsin alert logo.

AprilApple said...

We don't just elect politicians to protect unions -- we elect politicians to protect and serve everyone.
The democrats have forgotten that.

wdnelson93 said...

kcom - I suppose 'whimsy' could be stretched to include zombies...maybe...well, in fact, no.

AprilApple said...

Palladian - best post ever.

rhhardin said...

I can't read the legal stuff offhand, but it seemed as if the CJ was saying that not enough attention was paid to Sumi's fine reasoning.

It's sort of like a mathematics battle over whether a proof or a counterexample logically takes precedence.

Jason said...

Ok, there's another guy here who posts occasionally with the same user name as me.

Fortunately, we agree alot.

Smart guy, Jason.

Y'all should listen to him.

WV: enticism.

Seven Machos said...

Is this what democracy looks like, too?

Carol_Herman said...

Oh, on the recall, I seem to think you've got a District #42. With a chap named Clark or Clarke. Who called a local constituent. Barely got the words out:

Did you hear about the recall? When the woman on the phone said: "WHAT A CRIME" ... and hung up.

While her answering machine tape picked up that "Clark wanted to call her back and whip her."

That picked up on some steam on the Internet.

Jucidical "wonder women" exist on both sides of the fence.

I'm just waiting for Christmas, where plastic reindeer are displayed ... so you can put up a Cretch. In the public square. Sondra Day O'Connor said so.

Just store up on plastic reindeers. And, forks. And, stop expecting our integrated courts to function like they did in the old days.

That Shirley Abrahamson is pissed off? Doesn't bother a hair on my head.

Union troubles ahead will happen inside union headquarters; where lots of people will opt to have them "send their bills in the mail." And, NOT get pay deductions!

How many union members will be good for the money? How many will only make believe "the check is in the mail."

Big Mike said...

So Judge Sumi, asserting that the legislature had violated the law, herself violated the state constitution. Seeking to check the excesses of the legislature, she fell into judicial excess.

What sort of dingbat is Judge Sumi, that she wouldn't have known that right from the get-go?

How many recalls do the Republicans have to win in order to successfully impeach her?

Palladian said...

"Is this what democracy looks like, too?"

If the supreme court wasn't banging drums and delivering their opinion in chant form then, no.

kcom said...

The dissents said the important issues should have been carefully considered in a deliberative process rather than the expedited process followed by the majority.

Apparently the important issues were settled unambiguously clearly in 1943 and have been black letter law ever since. Judge Sumi ran roughshod over that finding and abused her position for biased personal reasons. The perfunctory smackdown she received was well earned when she checked her integrity (or was it her reading comprehension?) at the door.

The Crack Emcee said...

WINNING!!!!!!

roesch-voltaire said...

I wonder if this just shows how right the conservatives are when they claim the courts are political and activist--Interesting to compare the writing and reasoning of judge Prosser to judge Abrahamson. Does the rushed opinion mean they did not debate this much but relied on the Goodland case too much, as Abrahmson writes: Justice Prosser's concurrence is longer than the
order. The concurrence consists mostly of a statement of
happenings. It is long on rhetoric and long on story-telling
that appears to have a partisan slant. Like the order, the
concurrence reaches unsupported conclusions.

Sofa King said...

. Does the rushed opinion mean they did not debate this much but relied on the Goodland case too much


Um, no? The function of the Court is not to "debate" the law. It is to apply the law, as it exists, and the law on this matter is pretty clear.

Seven Machos said...

Poor Roesch. Never read a court case before until he cried over this one.

Where's the justice, man? This isn't justice. This is just a bunch of nerds disagreeing with each other about what the law should be. Roesch is shocked! SHOCKED!

Carol_Herman said...

Yes, Judge Sumi is a dingbat!

But Judge Sumi expected Kloppenhoppen to bounce Prosser off the Wisconsin Supreme Court bench.

August 1st is the date Kloppenhoppen was EXPECTING to become a judge. Sure, she came in short on the votes!

And, only because 7000 votes were withheld from Prosser's totals on the night of the election. Leaving Kloppenhoppen short of victory by 6800 votes.

Send stupid crooks to rob a bank and they trip on their way out the door, with their sackful of money.

Kloppenhoppen's case also didn't work out well, because the recount came pretty close to the actual numbers. (Even with holes in the bags. And, the media fighting hard to keep this beast alive.)

SUMI stays seated until the voters throw her out.

While, I don't know about you ... but I think God works in strange ways. I saw Obama trying to destroy Bibi Netanyahu; without laying a glove on the guy.

THen, I saw Obama toodling to England, where he stepped on his own toast to the queen.

Oh, and I can still see Anthony Weiner's gray underpants floating about the democraps in da House. And, beyond.

And, I see union members in Wisconsin, finally free of the automatic deductions to their paychecks.

Sometimes, you just have to recognize you won't see the events as they play out.

You won't see that Huma hasn't been happy since her honeymoon began.

And, hillary can't fix the fallout from happening, ahead. That's life.

flenser said...

Does the rushed opinion mean they did not debate this much

How much debate is needed? Everybody on the court knows the facts of this case. Everybody on the court knows how they want to vote on those facts. They could debate until the next election without changing anyones mind.

Carol_Herman said...

You know, I see FUNNY, too.

I see the union goons, inside, worried that they'll lose money when it can't be deducted straight off paychecks, by the State.

Maybe, they'll offer discounts?

You know? Pay ahead and get a 10% discount? Or, maybe, the unions will offer credit cards to their members, thinking the credit cards can have automatic deductions?

Who uses a credit card without bait attached? Will a $25 "free" check do? Or will they have to offer $500 "off?"

Where's the credit worthiness of the union members? Will the union thugs force the Wisconsin democraps to pull a "non dischargeable debt" out of their hats?

HA! You think I'm kidding.

Russ Feingold can't save them now. He's post-toasty. And, out of office.

k*thy said...

Despite hurdles, collecting bargaining is in. Despite reason, guns are go. Despite b-day, Fighting Bob still dead.

Seven Machos said...

Roesch is under the sorry impression that judges sit around in chambers and debate their decisions with each other. Like members of a congressional body.

Strangely stupid.

Godot said...

The name Althouse appears in Prosser's concurrence (top of p. 10).

"¶44 Goodland was decided nearly 70 years ago, but it remains fundamental law. In State ex rel. Althouse v. City of Madison, 79 Wis. 2d 97, 255 N.W.2d 449 (1977), this court cited State ex rel. Martin v. Zimmerman, 233 Wis. 16, 288 N.W. 454 No. 2011AP613-LV & 2011AP765-W.dtp 10 (1939), with approval, noting that "the [Martin] court pointed out that the question of the validity of [an] act could not be entertained by any court prior to its enactment." Althouse,, 79
Wis. 2d at 112."

Althouse is always on/in the case!

SunnyJ said...

Two thoughts:
1. Prosser, remain calm, let us do the name calling for you...is Chief Justice SA a beeatch or what? Pissy, pissy, pissy dissent.

2. The reason the protests are so small now is because the teachers only like to walk out when they get paid and are working for employers (schools) that will let them get by with it. Their devotion drops significantly when they have to show up on their already free time, or because they working a summer job for a private sector employer or themselves and they don't want to give up the cash. This is the strongest argument for cutting off the auto deduct of union dues, and force them to pay for themselves. There is biggest fear is that they know these people and they only like to spend other people's money...not their own.

Sloanasaurus said...

The dissent is pretty scathing especially of Prosser's concurrence. However, it is obvious that the concurrence was written for posterity.

Everyone knows, even liberals, that the claimed violation of the open meetings law was a form-over- substance argument only. Everyone knows todday what the facts are and that in substance, the meeting was the farthest from secret that you could possibly get and that all the democratic senators had purposely fled the state to avoid voting,etc....

Prosser's concurrence puts these facts down for posterity so everyone will know years from now the extent to which judge Sumi's ruling was misguided

Carol_Herman said...

Thanks to Ace of Spades for explaining the Latin "AB Initio" ... because it means the case isn't remanded back to Sumi. She gets no more "bites of the apple."

Her ruling is erased. Put a plastic reindeer on top of it.

roesch-voltaire said...

Poor Steve to confuse Abrahamson's remarks with mine. My point was to agree with conservatives that the divided votes shows how political justice can be, and to paste the quote to show there is even a disagreement about the facts of this case.

Seven Machos said...

My bad for misinterpreting then.

george said...

When the Dems were in the minority in WI and didn't have the numbers for a vote they fled the state and refused to debate. When they were in the majority in the Senate and House they locked the opposition out of the meeting rooms and didn't tell anyone what was in the bill until after it had been voted upon.

And all the while they have the gall to try to lecture us about what democracy should look like.

kcom said...

"Her ruling is erased."


Like it never even happened

Freeman Hunt said...

Roesch is under the sorry impression that judges sit around in chambers and debate their decisions with each other. Like members of a congressional body.

Wouldn't that be a good idea though? Just hear each other out. Maybe there would be more consensus and less contentious rulings.

Or maybe the judges would grow to despise each other.

I don't know. It would probably depend upon the personalities involved.

flenser said...

My point was to agree with conservatives that the divided votes shows how political justice can be

I don't think that justice is political. Courts often are though, thanks to generations of progressivism. How's that saying go? "The personal is the political"? Not much room for anybody to be impartial there. Every janitor, construction worker, waitress, doctor, lawyer, judge, and politician is supposed to constantly ask himself "What should I do in this situation as a good progressive?".

garage mahal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
garage mahal said...

Palladian said...
Kloppenburg is the one who looks like

I'm not sure you're in any position to criticize anyone else's looks. Kloppenburg ain't 300lbs. Just saying.

Fen said...

What sort of dingbat is Judge Sumi, that she wouldn't have known that right from the get-go?

Klopper lost by 7k. Seems like dingbat dem judges is the standard for Wisconsin.

Maybe Ann should do some seminars and community outreach: "The Althouse Legal Guide for Dingbats"

Fen said...

oh poor Garage is getting vicious again. Hide the SoreLoserman posters so he doesn't go all Jared Loughner on us again.

Fen said...

Prof, is this the same slapdown as SCOTUS "voided" the Florida court ruling in 2000?

My understanding is that when the higher courts use a term like "voided", it translates as "what the hell were you guys smoking when you made that ruling"

Kansas City said...

Sloanasaurus is correct in his assessment.

Prosser was writing so the record had an acccurate account of the facts (albeit, even if they were outside the official record a bit); I did not realize that when I read it. He included the front page of the next day's paper that had a huge photograph of the meeting showing all the people in attendance. Great work, even though it did allow the Chief Justice to criticize him for going outside the record -- a valid criticism but not of weight in this sham of a lawsuit. The CJ also went out of her way to praise her liberal cohort on the trial bench.

And, the democrats argument was very much form over substance. The meeting was not in any way secret. It was on TV.

frank said...

Heh, talk about getting the 'weiner', looks like Mary Ann prefers it the way Titus does, up the ass, heh.

Palladian said...

"I'm not sure you're in any position to criticize anyone else's looks. Kloppenburg ain't 300lbs. Just saying."

I ain't 300lbs either. More like 320.

What's your point?

t-man said...

Wow Garage - petty insults from you? You really are sinking lower by the day.

garage mahal said...

What's your point?

I made it.

t-man said...

As I understand it, because Sumi's decision was void ab initio, the statute was in effect and contracts entered into during the illegal stay are now void if they violate the statute.

Steveo said...

I blasted through the decision including CJ Abrahamson's screed. I think that Justice Prosser's characterization (and a lot of other people's) of CJ Abrahamson's personality is pretty accurate.

Palladian said...

"garage mahal said... I made it."

You'll never really make it, dearest garage.

Seven Machos said...

I'm not saying judges don't discuss the case. Of course they do. And I think 4-3 decisions are bad. But the lower court judge is to blame for the travesty all these judges were forced to rule on.

But what I'm seeing among leftists is this idea that the Wisconsin Supreme Court didn't orate with each other enough to satisfy the left. Which is stupid.

bagoh20 said...

I'm no legal mind, but Sumi's action seems pretty clearly out of bounds and it's hard to believe she didn't know it damned well. Yet she did it anyway, after all her schooling, vetting and the force of it's transparency, she still clearly ignored the law and tried to play king here.

All that matters is elections. The law is just a set of tokens we play with, and throw at each other when we get hold of them through elections. I just find it hard to take seriously that we are a nation of laws - not men. It seems just the opposite. If the right men or women get enough votes - by whatever means - the law means nothing. It's like a sword waiting for the most popular or ruthless guy in the room to pick it up and ravage the rest of us.

Lem said...

Sweeet!!

traditionalguy said...

Chief Justice Prosser carefully spelled out in every way he could that Sumi is a Lawless Judge. I bet he enjoyed doing that.

frank said...

Here's a quote from Yahoo, using Reuters news feed: "But Justices Shirley Abrahamson, Ann Walsh Bradley and N. Patrick Coons disagreed, saying their colleagues had rendered a "hasty judgment" in a case where "the answers are not clear and our precedent is conflicting." Note "Justice Coons" is this a Freudian, but racist, slip? Perhaps the writer or editor had hoped Gableman had not won his election? Or is it just an attempt to cover "CROOKS" on the WI Supreme Court? Cast your vote--democraticly, of course.

Lem said...

The funny thing in all of this is that if the budget repair bill does what its supposed to do the people trying to stop it will be among the top beneficiaries.

They cant see that now do to their myopia..

murgatroyd666 said...

garage mahal wrote:

    What's your point?

I made it.


Titus made the same thing a few days ago. His was pinched.

M.E. said...

Doing a happy dance here!

This is a great thread, by the way. Some true LOL comments... "Put a plastic reindeer on top of it." ?!?!

Please tell me this case stops here. I really hope nobody is going to try to appeal this... are they? Can they??

Carol_Herman said...

On August 1st Prosser, who won his next ten year term at the ballot box, gets sworn in.

BY WHOM, MAY I ASK?

Shirley Abramahmson, I will guess, won't be willing to administer this oath.

WHOSE GONNA DO IT?

Progressives, ahead, won't have to swear on a Bible. They'll just use a pair of Anthony Weiner's underpants.

Yes, Shirley Abrahamson had a hissy fit. She really doesn't think Prosser "got the facts right." Even though everybody and his uncle saw this one playing out on TV.

Ya know, if they're gonna do puppets, I'd suggest doing an Abrahamson one. Black robes. Grey underpants. A fork in one hand. Riding a plastic reindeer. Who cares?

Freeman Hunt said...

Yes, I read the dissent.

I see more clearly why Prosser said that.

Freeman Hunt said...

Her dissent is over-personalizing. It reads like her side of a screaming argument.

Not so much judicial temperament so much as not.

Steve Austin said...

I am confused here. A few commentators are claiming this is a 7-0 smack down of Sumi and that the dissent only believes the case shouldn't have been accepted and decided yet by the SCOW, thus implying they agree with the merits of he decision, just not the timing.

I read the dissent as them disagreeing on the merits of most of this. I guess I need to reread it.

By the way, LaFollette isn't going to publish the law. Part II of the big delay starts tomorrow morning.

Sloanasaurus said...

The dissent spends a lot of time criticising the idea of the legislature "violating the law."

This line of argument, however, is not a legal argument but a political one.

The majority made clear that the legislature cannot bind itself or future legislatures with procedure statutes. The statutes are irrelevant at the moment they are passed.

So the matter is political only and probably not a proper subject for a legal decision.

But, the fact remains, would it be a good thing for the legislature to follow its own rules?

Yes, it would. But in this case everyone knows that the claim the open meetings law was violated is frivolous. Yet we will never know how a liberal majority would have ruled. Would they have sided with the politics and struck the law down ignoring the constitutional issues, or would they have found only a technical violation of the law requiring a slap on the wrist as a remedy. (and avoid the constitutional arguments).

J said...

When the people and their representatives are mostly GOP-Tea-tards and anti-labor, then the joodiciary aka Black robe gang approve of their decisions (which tend to be conservative-reactionary), and praise...democracy. When the people are not GOP/tea-tards, but pro-labor and progressive, the Black robes disapprove, usually yapping something about checks and balances, the need for traditional republican values, the usual pseudo Tory crap. Thats been in effect since puritanical tyrant John Marshall seized control of the US.

Meade said...

Seven Machos said...

"Whatever happened to that one Jim guy, by the way?"

A: He's still around. Apparently changed his name to Jim Whoprefersthatweonlyusehisfirstname.

We're still waiting here at Meadhouse for a final police report from the Madison PDWhoprefersthatwedon'tcallthemthey'llcalluswhentheycrackthecase.

Meade said...

ackthecase.

J said...

Many teabugs forget JFK 's Fed order allowing PE unions as well. Some legal bureaucrats claim that order holds for all Fed and state employees across the US. Of course, a Fed order, even one signed by the likes of JFK, is not likely to stop Scalia Co. F**k, the young Don Scalia was probably involved in JFK's assassination.

Sofa King said...

I read the dissent as them disagreeing on the merits of most of this. I guess I need to reread it.


If you read it carefully, the dissent is only raising the arguments to say that "there is a legitimate issue here," to support its argument that the Court should have acted more slowly. The dissent doesn't say, "these are the correct arguments."

By the way, LaFollette isn't going to publish the law. Part II of the big delay starts tomorrow morning.


On what grounds? At this point, he is legally required to publish it. If he fails to do so he could be opening himself up to serious misconduct charges.

reformed trucker said...

"I am urging the union brats to stage a hunger strike..." - Fen

They should, it may be beneficial to their health. Have you seen the pictures of the protesters in the post above? They don't look like they're overworked and underfed. Such is life in the "other Wisconsin"...

reformed trucker said...

"WINNING!!!" - Crack

Nails it with one word.

J said...

Truckers, not Teachers. The Fen-Tardian motto.

Ahouse--where those too stupid to blog...blog.

Chuck66 said...

My school teacher relatives spend much of their summers poolside and often are dieting, so I guess that is kind of a hunger strike.

Chef Mojo said...

Hey J! Just one question, man...

What's Scott Walker's ass taste like?

Ha! Lick it hard, bitch!

Capisce?

J said...

Ah one of the Ahouse resident deviants shows up, Chefette. Are you a woman or man today, scum? On the other hand who the f**k cares, basura

A bit of dissent does tend to stir up the trash, led by their great atheist visionary, The Amazing Cracki.

Seven Machos said...

Thanks, Meade. He's looking a little thin. I'm worried about him. I hope the women from the protest photos today can maybe give him a sandwich.

Chef Mojo said...

"J: The Movie," starring Andrew Dice Clay:

So. There I was... with my tongue up Scott Walker's ass!

And he looks back and me, and says, "Yo! J! I know I made you my bitch and all, but you're tickling my tonsils! Back off!"

OH!


Fin

Seven Machos said...

J -- Awesome. John Edwards wouldn't have allowed this. Surely, he would have used John F. Kennedy's authority to allow certain federal worker unions in certain areas to therefore prevent a state from regulating certain state worker unions. Because that makes sense. In totalitarian J world.

Of course, John Edwards would also have eliminated poverty forever. When will you tell us about his glorious five-year plan?

J said...

Wow. Deep, Chefette--like street whore obscenities. I bet yr syphilitic yid mammy taught you that, eh, puta. Thanks for evidence skank-tard.

Chef Mojo said...

J has his tongue up Scott Walker's ass harder than an Alien face hugger planting a chestbuster!

He. Just. Won't. Let. GO!

Savor the flavor, J!

J said...

11: 38 Hey Nachos--I dont give a fuck about yr mumbling idiocies, jewboy. So like shut the F. up. Fore I shut you up


Got that? STFU yidskank.Heads up to the Meyer Cohens of AHouse

Seven Machos said...

This is the part where J goes ballistic. I'm getting a martini.

Almost Ali said...

Prediction(s) "before' Judge Sumi ruled against the legislature and Walker.

The link is an Althouse thread from March, 2011. Scroll up and down for a number of interesting and insightful comments.

Seven Machos said...

I'm not Jewish. I'm also not French. But I do kiss that way.

This is going to be awesome.

J -- Tell us again how much you bench press.

SPImmortal said...

"Many teabugs forget JFK 's Fed order allowing PE unions as well. Some legal bureaucrats claim that order holds for all Fed and state employees across the US. Of course, a Fed order, even one signed by the likes of JFK, is not likely to stop Scalia Co. F**k, the young Don Scalia was probably involved in JFK's assassination. "

It's always fun to drop by here and see how the symptoms of J's schizophrenia are progressing.

Chef Mojo said...

Slurp it, J! Harder! Be considerate of that ass, like the gentleman you are!

But, wait! You're not a gentleman, are you?

That's because a true gentleman would let Garage in on the action, and as it looks now, you ain't lettin' anyone in on that ass!

Go, J! Try and twist that tongue like a corkscrew!

Savor. The. Flavor!

Sofa King said...

11: 38 Hey Nachos--I dont give a fuck about yr mumbling idiocies, jewboy. So like shut the F. up. Fore I shut you up

Oh look, it's Internet Tough Guy!

LMFAOPromotionalkitten basket

Chef Mojo said...

@J:

¡La mejor medicina es el ano del Scott Walker!

¡Ahora cómalo!

¡Si usted no come el ano, usted no puede tener ninguna dulces! ¡Cómo puede usted tener cualquier dulce, si usted no come el ano!

Seven Machos said...

J has not earned the usted.

SPImmortal said...

"11: 38 Hey Nachos--I dont give a fuck about yr mumbling idiocies, jewboy. So like shut the F. up. Fore I shut you up "

ahahahaha great stuff

I bet the most conversation you get in a day is during your spells where you sit in the corner mumbling to yourself.

Do you have assburgers?

Chef Mojo said...

@ Seven:

What? You think I'm gonna use the familiar with that asshole? I prefer to keep it formal.

Seven Machos said...

Fair enough, Chef. Thanks for insulting that sad, sorry fuck.

foxtrot said...

@Chef Mojo:

Estoy completamente de acuerdo con la receta para J.

@J:

Speaking of assholes, me thinks you could benefit from a salt water enema to flush out all of that bullshit in your system.

Chef Mojo said...

J can't possibly do violence on us! And I've got proof!

A) He's a total pussy.

B) He's a little distracted by the fact that his tongue is entering Scott Walker's small intestine. He's trying to savor the flavor, people!

C) Still a total pussy.

WV: miptlel: That's J trying to say, "My god! It's full of stars!," with his tongue up Scott Walker's ass...

Chef Mojo said...

C'mon J! How's it tasting?

Uh oh!

wv: hypoop! Look out below, J! Here comes the flavor to savor!

Chef Mojo said...

@ foxtrot:

¡Gracias, amigo! Ese pendejo J es demasiado fácil de insultar.

MadisonMan said...

I was down at the Capitol today and was literally shocked

There were downed power lines?

MadisonMan said...

Maybe that was snarky, but I sat through a High School Graduation speech last weekend and every other sentence, seemingly, had the word literally in it.

Dan Nerad is not a good speaker.

Freeman Hunt said...

There were downed power lines?

Now won't you feel silly if the person comes back and writes, "Yes! That's just how it happened!"

MadisonMan said...

Or maybe the police were going crazy with the tasers?

Jamieson said...

Excellent! Now on to the recalls where the Republicans should pick up three new Senators.

carrie said...

What do constitutional law professors think of this decision? Personally, I think it's too bad that it was decided quickly, but then the case was only before the supreme court because of the stunts pulled by the democrats so I think the remedy fits the wrong so to speak. I hope that none of these strategies (i.e., dems leaving and the court rushing) are ever used again. This is Dane county and nothing will happen to Sumi--she is a hero in Dane County.

ken in sc said...

J, it is my understanding that an executive order issued by the President, save during a national emergency, is only binding on members of the executive branch of the federal government. They are not binding on state officials or private citizens. U.S. Presidents may not rule by decree, although it gets tried from time to time. The GM and Chrysler bail-out deals come pretty close.

Skipper50 said...

If true that the judiciary can't interfere in the work of the legislature, how is it that courts have ordered the appropriation of tax money for projects, like school funding?

Sofa King said...

how is it that courts have ordered the appropriation of tax money for projects, like school funding?

They have to have a constitutional basis.

LawGirl said...

The Court’s ruling clearly upholds the separation of powers over the knee-jerk politicization of the courts accomplished by Ozanne being allowed to bring this case in the first place.

The politicization is even more evident from Justice Abrahamson’s concurring/dissenting opinion. She makes clear that she concurs with the majority in these two parts: 1. this is an important issue; and 2. the bill is not yet law because the Secretary of State didn’t perform his ministerial duty of publishing it.

Ensuring that her opinion will be in no way as concise as the majority, she spills ink patting the Dane County Circuit Court judge on the back for having issued a lengthy opinion, replete with citations to authority (whether the authority was on point is not mentioned).

However, very tellingly, she never says whether the lower court was right. Instead, Justice Abrahamson nit-picks the majority opinion for being too concise, Justice Prosser’s concurrence for being longer than the majority opinion and including too much context, and the process of the opinion coming about for being too efficient. I’ve read many court opinions and have seen few concurring/dissenting opinions that are this personal, this political, and, frankly, this bitter in tone.

abeer ahmed said...

visit us on lifeandstylemag.com
http://whois.domaintasks.com/lifeandstylemag.com